Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Sir Larry Scott.. (P12 considering buying out Larry Scott)

Buffnik said:
The best part of bringing in investors is that they will give exactly zero ****s about a tv network serving a social agenda. They will have zero tolerance for bloated operating expenses and salaries. They will be about bottom line profits - which is what benefits CU over the long-term and is much more important than a onetime windfall from the sale of equity.
Click to expand...
That’s all well and good up to the point where CU basketball doesn’t get televised because it’s deemed to be not profitable enough.
 
onealcd said:
It’s ****ty to think about how screwed we were by going first too. Imagine if we went last and the networks signed these deals before hand where they gave a bunch of money to the big ten and sec. then the pac 12 comes in and says hey we understand the night games are important and we are the logical conference to be put in those slots but we are sacrificing exposure and fans to do this so we are going to need more money to do so. Instead Scott thought he got a good deal because he had no idea what the market was going to give those other two and now we don’t have as much leverage because the ratings on those late games are so much lower.
Click to expand...
That presupposes Scott wouldn't have f*cked things up as usual.
 
skibum said:
You can always criticize, but it's hard to be really, strongly critical of someone who has added $384 million in market validated value to your balance sheet, plus $57 million in cash, plus $20-$30 million/year in cash.

Basically, ignore everything but the bottom line. If this deal gets done at these terms, he has delivered:
  1. Annual cash distributions that were ahead of the game for a few years, but have slipped behind. Regardless, they're still substantial.
  2. A one-time cash distribution of $57 million
  3. A 1/12th ownership share of an enterprise that was worth $0 when started, and is now worth $5 billion. (Roughly $385 million in value)
You add those three things up, and you get a total $ benefit that is at least equal to, and probably greater than any other P5 conference has delivered over the same frame. Given that he started with a conference that was seriously lagging behind, and that has had the premier revenue producing sports **** the bed the last two years, that's a pretty darn good performance.

It pisses me off that I'm defending him, but money talks.
Click to expand...

onealcd said:
Need an equity partner that can help leverage the distributors, streamline network production and get this thing ready for the next tv deal. I definitely worry about Scott being able to deliver that but with the school presidents and athletic directors more involved there is hope.
Click to expand...

Larry has turned more things to gold than to lead over his career.

None of the other conferences can sell any equity stakes because they only own half their network or 49% of it. Their partner in that arrangement by the way also has all the experience in media they dont, hires the talent, has the studios, and manages the equipment.

onealcd said:
Click to expand...


I cant get past the pay wall to see if they talk about who the potential bidders are.

What if they sell 15% to NBC? Or TBS? Or Netflix? Or Sinclair (50+ stations west of Miss).

Theoretically this could lead them to perhaps establishing a broadcast network thats not on cable. Maybe they shop some of their programing to broadcasters around the region or enter into relationships where, say NBC or CBS affiliates, carry and broadcast Pac-12 games that their parent network didnt contract for.
 
Last edited:
The one thing that has always given me hope about the Pac 12 and Larry is the 100% ownership of the broadcast platforms as discussedabove. Being a Directv customer I'm not happy, but if they ever figure out how to increase eyeballs that asset is going to be worth huge dollars.
 
@MiamiBuffs

Interesting you mentioned Netflix. The will need content badly soon and will competing with Disney+ at the end of the year and I just read AT&T wants to bundle hbo, cinemax, and Warner brothers for $16 and that would launch next year.
 
Buffnik said:
The best part of bringing in investors is that they will give exactly zero ****s about a tv network serving a social agenda. They will have zero tolerance for bloated operating expenses and salaries. They will be about bottom line profits - which is what benefits CU over the long-term and is much more important than a onetime windfall from the sale of equity.

So, what valuation they sell at is very much secondary to me. Important part is that we’re bringing in a loud voice for the profit motive.
Click to expand...
If this happens you also have to hope they get a good one. You get the wrong investor misunderstanding the market or looking to make a quick buck and it doesn't help any of the issues you mentioned above.
 
Buffnik said:
The best part of bringing in investors is that they will give exactly zero ****s about a tv network serving a social agenda. They will have zero tolerance for bloated operating expenses and salaries. They will be about bottom line profits - which is what benefits CU over the long-term and is much more important than a onetime windfall from the sale of equity.

So, what valuation they sell at is very much secondary to me. Important part is that we’re bringing in a loud voice for the profit motive.
Click to expand...
I'm really hoping for an investor that very bluntly tells every school president that the best way to increase their value and distributions is to win in football and basketball.

You want more money, more exposure, better PR? Win.
 
Duff Man said:
The problem with that early time slot is it eventually comes into direct competition with the early Big 10 timeslot.
Click to expand...

Sure, Big10 games such as Indiana-Minnesota or Purdue-Maryland. USC-Utah or OU-UCLA, 2 of Wilner's examples, would easily compete with those bottom-tier Big10 games. And as he pointed out, you're only looking at 4 Pac12 games per year and 1 home game per school every 3 years. Small price to pay for the immeasurable extra exposure this conference desperately needs. LS and the Pac12 presidents don't seem to get the importance of the exposure aspect.
 
collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

Apple reportedly interested in Pac-12 sports rights - CollegeFootballTalk | NBC Sports

#Pac12AfterDark may be coming directly to an iPhone near you in the not too distant future. In a report that is bound to have a significant impact on the entire sports media landscape, the Wall Street Journal reports that Apple has held preliminary talks with the Pac-12 to potentially bring...
collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com

More recently, Mr. Cue met with Pac-12 Conference Commissioner Larry Scott about the conference’s effort to sell an equity stake in its media rights package, valued at up to $5 billion, that includes the Pac-12 Networks and all marquee football, basketball and live sports programming that is fully available in 2024, according to people familiar with the discussions. The conference includes the University of Southern California, Oregon University and Stanford University.

Mr. Cue has questioned the value of a deal with the Pac-12 because it would only give Apple rights to some games, people familiar with his thinking said. He also recognized that if Apple ever secured rights to all of the conference’s best programming, it would need to show some of those games on traditional, broadcast TV to satisfy fans.
Click to expand...
 
There is no reason why apple cant put the pac 12 networks on their streaming service. Netflix and Amazon Prime could do the same thing. And the pac 12 would be uniquely suited to do that, as we own the network ourselves, whereas the other conference networks are owned by companies with a vested interest in keeping cable alive.

They could give apple the right to simulcast some events like the nfl does with amazon prime as well, but there is going to be less money in that as long as usc is in the ****ter.
 
Scott's gamble on full Pac12 Network ownership could backfire in a big way as pointed out by Wilner:

But we cannot (and should not) wholly ignore the other potential outcome:

That Scott’s strategy will backfire, leaving the Pac-12 at a momentous disadvantage in media reach and revenue compared to its peers — a hole so deep that it threatens the conference’s long-term Power Five status.
Click to expand...

www.mercurynews.com

Pac-12 media strategy: A worst-case scenario with ESPN and Fox looks something like this

ESPN’s reported acquisition of the SEC ‘Game of the Week’ could have significant repercussions across the college football world, prompting a recalibration that pushes the Pac-12 …
www.mercurynews.com www.mercurynews.com
 
what about those that don't really care for or have apple products? Is it going to keep us android users in the dark?
 
So the Vidgo core package is 39.99 and includes pac12 net along with the Disney's (ABC, ESPN, etc.) FS1, FS2, and more like the Halmark channels. Adding the pac12 regionals cost $10 extra.
 
AeroBuff99 said:
So the Vidgo core package is 39.99 and includes pac12 net along with the Disney's (ABC, ESPN, etc.) FS1, FS2, and more like the Halmark channels. Adding the pac12 regionals cost $10 extra.
Click to expand...
Similar to SlingTv Orange&Blue ($45 for 53 channels+$10 for Pac-12), but cheaper ($39.99+$10 for regiaonal Pac=-12) and 7 more channels.
 
I'm on Sling and I think I'm going to try the 7-day free trial of VidGo. They've got more sports channels and they add a couple of the traditional networks by having ABC and FOX. If the service is good, it's a little more bang for the buck. I need to do a little research, though. Beyond service reliability, I'm not sure that they offer DVR with their platform.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top